So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making.
> Not right now, obviously. But where does the government's power to enforce things come from? Violence. That's the nature of the beast. That's also why I qualified it with "institutionalized", which you seem to have conveniently ignored. The government represents an implied threat of violence used to back the power of an institution that abstract actual violence away (most of the time). This is why people often can't see the violence; and because of that I find it helpful to point it out more explicitly.
So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...
> I know what the government defines as a monopoly, and would say Amazon skirts that line VERY closely. But I'm trying to get people from just saying, "it's a monopoly" and leaving it at that. That lets the connotation of the word do all the legwork, when we should be examining exactly what the real behavior is and whether it's actually wrong and something we should be attacking them for. It's all well and good to talk about the Law, but sometimes we have to talk about ethics and rights, too.
So examine it. Your post certainly has done nothing to challenge whatever assumptions you think people are making.
What do you think I'm getting to? And in that very comment I do, as well: I spoke about how it was their right to do what they want with their platform, spoke about how we're criticizing something for being too good and how it conveniently serves the purposes of organizations with alterior motives. Among other things. And there is nothing wrong with trying to start a conversation and shake people out of their preconceived thoughts on the matter, which I demonstrably have succeded at if you read the rest of the thread. The rest of the commentary on the post was becoming a uniform big-company-bashing and I've tangibly changed that. Not good enough, I guess?
Also, it's really not funny to just copy and paste answers like that. I'm taking it as a joke because it's kinda funny and sometimes stuff like that doesn't come through well in a text based medium, but heads up in case you weren't aware that's really passive agressive. (:
> So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay...
Yeah, essentially. Are you going to engage with the point, or are you just going to make fun and appeal to emotion and it's obvious rediculousness?
> Yeah, essentially.
Nifty! If all appeals to government intervention are by definition violent, then that would mean that, for example, filing a sexual harassment lawsuit or pressing charges against a kidnapper is actually just, "solving the problem by resorting to violence." That really spices up a headline.
As someone else mentioned, words have meanings. We all (well most of us, apparently) agree that given words refer to specific things. That's how we communicate. Appropriating a word with the desired connotation to an arbitrary definition just because you can find a way in which they're associated -- that's misleading. It's using inapplicable words intentionally, for the purpose of causing others to incorrectly understand what you're talking about.
It turns out we have a special word that refers precisely to that very type of communication: "lying."
Yeah, it is, and that's great! A kidnapper and sexual harasser deserve, morally, to be dealt with with violence, or the threat of it. Do you think that they deserve a gentle hand and a hug? I don't.
The reason I said "resort" in the original post, and the reason I meant it as a bad thing, is because corporations have other, proper, ways of dealing with their competitors. Says they're supposed to use solely, but aren't here. A sexual victem, however, not only has no other recourse (really) but is using the proper route for dealing with it! So yes, they're solving it that way, but that's not a bad thing in this case.
The other thing is that, institutionalized violence usually has a decision mechanism (the judges and the law) and such that make it superior, usually, to regular old violence for actually solving problems. It still retains it's basic nature as violence or the threat of it, but the texture is different. I propose that that's actually why people don't freak out about a lawsuit and such: because it's not vigilante justice, not because it's not violence. We just often forget that it's veiled, controlled violence at all, because our justice system is generally good enough that we don't have to think about it. That's why bringing charges against a sexual harasser or a kidnapper isn't outrageous: we are using violence against them, but we'll be using a mechanism first to decide if it's warranted. My point with saying that in my OG post is just to make people realize what is really trying to be weilded against Amazon. Especially since this sort of decision doesn't really get a level headed hearing usually.
> As someone else mentioned, words have meanings. We all (well most of us, apparently) agree that given words refer to specific things. That's how we communicate. Appropriating a word with the desired connotation to an arbitrary definition just because you can find a way in which they're associated -- that's misleading. It's using inapplicable words intentionally, for the purpose of causing others to incorrectly understand what you're talking about.
Both you and the other guy conveniently forget that I was saying "institutionalized violence" not direct violence. It's like the difference between a threat of violence and the real present thing, but reiefied into an institution. And the way in which they're associated, when qualified by the proper words, makes sense and is clear-- I'm not just redefining violence. But you don't like the definition so you ignore the qualifications so that you can tear it down. Straw-man-style.
Furthermore, your and his reactions to what I've pointed out are interesting. Do you disagree that the government's power is based on the threat of violence? Probably not. You just don't like it called out like that, you prefer to leave it unsaid because it makes the whole thing seem nicer.
But that's my point. I'm not trying to say that the government is evil or bad all the time, or that anyone who uses the government is evil or bad. I'm saying that they're using violence. Sometimes that's warranted. Sometimes its even, in my opinion, morally required. We should just be clear about what we're doing instead of hiding what's really happening under the hood because we don't like how it sounds. The government is a fell weapon, so to speak, not a child's plaything. We should be aware of how we use it and what we tell it to do. Having it deal with sexual harassers and kidnappers (what do you think they'll do, if you win the suit? Arrest them? Fine them? What is an arrest or a fine except force?) is great, and right. Letting it be manipulated by corporations who find it convenient, is probably not.
> It turns out we have a special word that refers precisely to that very type of communication: "lying."
It's actually not. Lying would be using the appropriate words to make someone understand exactly what you're talking about, but just talking about something false, which is not what I'm doing. Using the wrong words so people don't understand what you're saying is called poor communication or a misunderstanding, which I might be guilty of, but that's the worst you could charge me with. Nice ad homenim though. Almost got me!
> Yeah, essentially.
Amazing! You're literally arguing that 18 U.S. Code § 1111[1] is institutionalized violence.
> Are you going to engage with the point, or are you just going to make fun and appeal to emotion and it's obvious rediculousness?
My general approach to debate is that the person I'm debating with is not going to be persuaded no matter what I do. The person I'm trying to persuade isn't you, it's anyone else reading our conversation. So no, I won't engage this point, because I assume the audience is smart enough to figure why your point is irrelevant on their own. That is what "obvious" means, after all.
I genuinely enjoyed this conversation, you don't meet people on the internet often that are willing to discuss things at length, and I hope you have a good rest of your day!
It's irrelevant, because it's a noncentral fallacy[1]. To quote Scott Alexander:
> Suppose someone wants to build a statue honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his nonviolent resistance to racism. An opponent of the statue objects: "But Martin Luther King was a criminal!"
> Any historian can confirm this is correct. A criminal is technically someone who breaks the law, and King knowingly broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest - hence his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
> But in this case calling Martin Luther King a criminal is the noncentral. The archetypal criminal is a mugger or bank robber. He is driven only by greed, preys on the innocent, and weakens the fabric of society. Since we don't like these things, calling someone a "criminal" naturally lowers our opinion of them.
> The opponent is saying "Because you don't like criminals, and Martin Luther King is a criminal, you should stop liking Martin Luther King." But King doesn't share the important criminal features of being driven by greed, preying on the innocent, or weakening the fabric of society that made us dislike criminals in the first place. Therefore, even though he is a criminal, there is no reason to dislike King.
In this case, you calling regulation violence is the noncentral. The archetypical violence is assault. It is driven by anger, causes great physical harm to victims, and causes fear in the community. Since we don't like these things, calling something "violence" generally makes us think that thing is bad.
You're really saying, "Because you don't like violence, and regulation is violence, you should stop liking regulation." But regulation doesn't share the important features of being driven by anger, causing great phsyical harm to victims, and fear in the community that made us dislike violence in the first place. Therefore, even if regulation is in theory backed up by the possibility of violence (which is a bit of a stretch to begin with), there is no reason to care. It's utterly irrelevant to any reasonable conversation.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
